Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 | Page 9 | Page 10 | Page 11 | Page 12 | Page 13 | Page 14 | Page 15 | Page 16 | Page 17 | Page 18 | Page 19 | Page 20 | Page 21 | Page 22 | Page 23 | Page 24 | Page 25 | Page 26 | Page 27 | Page 28 | Page 29 | Page 30 | Page 31 | Page 32 | Page 33 | Page 34 | Page 35 | Page 36 | Page 37 | Page 38 | Page 39 | Page 40 | Page 41 | Page 42 | Page 43 | Page 44 | Page 45 | Page 46 | Page 47 | Page 48 | Page 49 | Page 50
Michael Ubaldi, November 5, 2002.
Two points I made yesterday: the Democrats have no agenda save for their inextiguishable desire for power over people, and the Republicans have become confident enough to pierce this political Achille's Heel again and again.
From Marc Racicot, RNC Chairman, in response to Terry McAuliffe's desperate bailouts:
"Because of the Democrats' exhausting inability to address issues of urgency and importance to the American people, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee has attempted to breathe life into an otherwise confusing and scattered agenda through the use of wild and wacky allegations of misconduct. Without a record of accomplishment or leadership, without ideas or vision, without truth or accuracy, Democrats have embraced a desperate Election Day doomsday strategy. They have apparently come to believe that there is nothing left to be done other than to rely upon the politics of fear, fabrication and falsehood."
As of 4:00 EDT, Matt Drudge has begun teasing us with exit poll trends. I'm nervous - but confident.
Michael Ubaldi, November 5, 2002.
Terry McAuliffe knows that it's a slam-dunk to accuse a whore of adultery; any time, any place. Florida's distiction as the last election's Spanish Civil War for Democratic testing of legal schemes to thwart elections has flowered. I'm amazed, however, to see the bogus, seminar hysteria bubbling up so early in the day. Then again, the Dems learned that the butterfly-ballot charge was past due and easily exposed as ginned up; can't blame them for guile, eh? And it's grimly humorous to look at these allegations knowing that the districts in question are almost certain to be controlled and run, jealously, by Democrats.
Michael Ubaldi, November 5, 2002.
Byron York wrote in the National Review what amounts to domestic Realpolitik; a sort of sour grapes assessment taken of a tiny Republican gain in the Senate.
But let's wait a moment before chiseling the tombstone. What if the Senate races, half of which are toss-ups, benefit from an energized GOP? I don't think the national momentum towards conservative leadership, beyond the latest polls or even this present election, should be brushed aside. Moreover, York's entire premise depends upon a 50-50 split, an outcome that hasn't even had the time to occur, let alone having enjoyed the votes to align commensurately. If he were a psychic, he'd have been retired from a lottery victory--not writing politics for NR. How many more Senate seats must the Republicans gain to guardedly thumb their noses at Daschle & Co.? It's certainly within reach if you take today's numbers and this year's trends with a grain of optimism instead of a pound of salt. I'd prefer to talk about that than to commiserate with York about how wonderful sawdust can taste when the pantry is otherwise bare.
Michael Ubaldi, November 4, 2002.
The 1994 and 2000 elections persuaded me to doubt the power of polling; instead of following polling pronouncements as if from an oracle, I appreciate them as guidelines and tools. With that in mind, my forecast for tomorrow's midterm elections amalgamates all relevant data to serve a larger, overarching impression that, to me, is far more compelling than an average of pollsters' predictions.
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS IDEOLOGICALLY BANKRUPT. Quite simply put, they stand for nothing; they wish to accomplish nothing. Their only objective is the perpetuation of personal and, because a collective aids individuals, party power.
Democrat weapons of choice--entitlements, environmental regulation, diplomatic moral egalitarianism and wealth redistribution--have been proven wrong again and again over the past twenty-five years. Carter ran them into the ground and paraded their failure for the world before they were buried by Reagan. Enter twelve years of solid, Republican executive power. George H. W. Bush's weaknesses (and his own absence of robust ideals) opened a rent through which the now-nihilist Democrats could slide through. Bill Clinton successfully galvanized his directionless party with the devil's own strategy: demonize your adversaries and criticize their policies, taking care not to provide any concrete solutions to problems, lest you be held accountable for a failure (in which case you may be thrown out of office) or a success (the issue can no longer be brandished against opponents). Lather, rinse, repeat.
It's a perfect cycle for the cynical opportunist, provided he or she can bluff a convincing semblance of conviction. The inability to indefinitely hold this pattern leads us to the next point.
THIS TIME, THE DEMOCRATS ARE BEING EXPOSED (AND THE MORE BRAZEN ARE EXPOSING THEMSELVES. Poor Honest Abe's adage about deceit has turned into a cliché--you know: all of the people, some of the time; some of the people, all of the time. The present American political situation, however, offers to renew the relevance of such an observation. Funnily enough, the 20th Century's Nineties were just as naughty as its predecessor's. Complacency with the defeat of the Soviet Union clouded judgment and in the half-light of disbelief and arrogance, the human spirit in America willfully turned a blind eye to deception and crookedness. In the wake of September 11th, the herald of right and wrong has been audibly amplified; the shale-thin arguments and their idiotic slogans of days previous have since shattered, so pale now do the previous decade's policies and concerns seem in the new light. Now that Evil's outline has once again been spied, so has the Lie become more palpable.
How does that effect the Democrats in a practical sense? Simply put, their campaigns are no longer effective--and in many cases, are so risky as to actually place them in the political danger from backfires. Tom Daschle's attacks on Bush's economic policies and war command, true to form in their saturation with vitriol and absence of alternative, were seen for what they were--hollow and disingenious. Between the refreshed perception of many in the public to the erudite observations elicited by media outlets--Fox News, Limbaugh, honest newspapers and well-read Blogs--one description could be settled upon: all talk and no trousers.
Most importantly, Republicans seem to have grown a slight gain of manhood in a national sense, and have begun to draw attention to the very impotence of the Democratic bid for power.
EVIDENCE OF THIS LOSS OF STRENGTH ARE EVERYWHERE. The Democrats changed their battle-cry weekly over the past six months, from a "secretive executive branch" to the "mishandling of the war," to the "mismanaging of the economy," (and again eight months later) to the "absence of debate over Iraq," to the "rushing of debate." Throw in Daschle's comments against Bush right before Operation Anaconda or Daschle's shortlived call for Bush to "apologize" for statements the president never made, or Dick Gephardt's abandonment of the Democrats' turgidly dovish stance on the defense of American interests. Contrast this information with the fact that Democrats are still without any cogent platform--rather, none at all--and the desperate paralysis of this party is clear.
Now let's turn to tomorrow's election. Even if enjoying a more energized base, the Republicans--and the Democrats--have successfully whittled the baseless charges and turnip-ghost issues to nothing. The economy is stuttering, yes: but it fell before Bush even took office, and what better way to relieve the consumer than with tax cuts? The Democrats have no answer. Iraq is a menace and its fall is a Normandy of sorts in the West's engaged dismantling of the Arab Culture of Death. The Democrats have no answer. Social security, intended as a short-term suppliment by none other than Franklin Delano Roosevelt, cannot sustain itself. Is the stock market so much less desirable than a phantom account that disappears should its owner expire before retirement, when that money could be creatively invested and accrue interest? The Democrats have no answer. Campaign finance reform, the environment; these eye-candy concerns have long-since shrivelled up and stand well below what truly seems to matter in the minds of Americans and American voters: integrity and relevance. George W. Bush has kept their confidence and has not abused his office; he is deliberate, straightforward, foresighted and (often in my opinion) unbearably patient with his political adversaries and international enemies. In a word, he is a gracious president.
And all the while, the Democrats excavate more deeply, twisting a eulogy into sick conjuration of The Triumph of the Will in Wisconsin; evading election law and replacing a failing candidate for a ringer in New Jersey. They hide behind name (Townsend-Kennedy) and stature (Mondale).
But it doesn't seem to be working this time--see the forest for the trees. Voters will attend the polls tomorrow and from all indications, the brightest political stars telling the constellation, will reject the cynical time-servers. Winning the Senate and gaining in the House, the Republicans will vindicate earnestness and champion political progress.
Michael Ubaldi, October 30, 2002.
Drudge has the scoop. I'll repost to the story later.
My introduction to this weasel was, quite fittingly, none other than this very weasel spending his Fox News Sunday interview to straight-face some baldfaced lies about arsenic and e-coli. Remember the Democrats' first steps into George W. Bush's first term, ladies and gents? When they tried to up-end the Bush administration's initial abdication of a Clinton order to drastically reduce the acceptably minute level of arsenic in specific natural reservoirs, essentially claiming that a refusal of Bush to move from the standard percentage to the Clinton-requested lower percentage was in fact an increase or carte blanche for poisoned Americans? As if all of us accept a nominal amount of arsenic in our bloodstream? As if there's a shadowy Arsenic Lobby to whom Bush grovels. "I really don't want to see my kids drinking arsenic in their water" and "I love my kids, and I don't think they should risk e-coli in their food" was the gist of his repetitive, masturbatory diatribe.
The whole sorry display reminded me of the Democrats' early-Nineties perception of "spending cuts," wherein a decrease in proposed hikes (from, say, 13% to 10%) were in fact "cuts." "Well golly," they'd pine, "any loving-caring-multiculturalist-softhearted American would have supported the hikes, so it's definitely a cut!" That sort of molestation of intellect boiled me then and boils me now.
Limbaugh dismissed McAuliffe as a "punk." I think old Terry's a buffoon. But the liberal Democrats are cannibals--anyone knows that. The weak are stripped for their hides and then eaten. As much as his antics may have steamed me, I grow fonder for the idea that McAuliffe's entry will be but a spark in the annals of politics--half of a page on one of the shorter chapters of a ten-volume series.
UPDATE: Here we go: Drudge even provided an innocuous photograph of the weasel in question.
Michael Ubaldi, October 30, 2002.
"We're not good, they're not evil, everything is relative."
Listen carefully: We're good, they're evil, nothing is relative. Say it with me now and free yourselves.
You see, folks, saying "We're good" doesn't mean "We're perfect." Okay? The only perfect being is the bearded guy on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The plain fact is that our country has, with all our mistakes and blunders, always been and always will be, the greatest beacon of freedom, charity, opportunity, and affection in history.
If you need proof, open all the borders on Earth and see what happens. In about half a day, the entire world would be a ghost town, and the United States would look like one giant line to see "The Producers."
...Amen. To America, the Winston Churchill of nations!
Michael Ubaldi, October 29, 2002.
The best way to lay the groundwork for my perception is to offer to you as much of my modest paper trail as possible.
This first link is to my existing essay archives on FigureConcord.com. A bit of perusal will most likely afford you the immediate recognition of many (if not most) of my ideological persuasions. Though often of a flowery tongue, I express rather plainly--or at least candidly.
** If what was wasn't and what wasn't was, what might be might be what couldn't.
** No, I don't imbibe: there are enough people in the world doing it for me.
** My very unnatural ambivalence to power and prestige keep me from the studies of its pursuit. I feel as if out-of-body in terms of planning and scheming; that I cannot be brought to actively attempt to engineer situations that further my own, or else for any extended period of time. It is a bizarre numbness and psychological breathlessness, an anemic sense of worldly ambition. Not lazy, by any means: just storing my zeal in a pocket, obscured from life's view. It seems to be the price one pays when their dreams eschew the concrete.
** Walking out of the mall one day after lunch, I held the door open for a bespectacled, portly man. "Thanks a lot," he said, as he turned towards one end of the parking lot and I to the other. Several hundred meters away I walked into the lobby of my office building. As I rounded the corner, I saw the elevator door held open - by the bespectacled, portly man! I had never seen this fellow before and have never since, yet there he was, "returning the favor," as he put it. As I waited for Floor 4 he exited one story before; we wished the other pleasant afternoons. The Golden Rule in perfect form, this remains one of the happiest memories of my life.
** I'd read in the newspaper one morning that geneticists had defined certain bits of DNA as "junk genes," essentially extraneous links between the clumps of hereditary information deemed important by modern science. Par for the course, the only statement more unbelievable than any of the scientists' rationale - "we just can't figure out a purpose, therefore these links must be useless" - was their resolution.
"We're going to try to develop organisms without these 'junk genes.' It shall be the most efficient organism ever," they boasted.
Hubris, I screamed.
A few months later I stumbled across another morning newspaper blurb. It turns out that our brilliant scientific community discovered a purpose for the erstwhile superfluous DNA after all.
The only one who laughed more heartily than me, I reckon, was God.
** Schadenfreude is when you look back and giggle at memories of your lesser-minded, second-grade classmates misinterpreting the reading passage "O.K." phonetically, as in, "ahk."
** Thank the Lord I haven't found my way into half the scraps I tried to.